Free Republic

During the Senate confirmation hearings for Neil Gorsuch, several democrats suggested that Trump’s nominee was unfit to serve because he believes in the Constitution. Seeing as how the job of Supreme Court Justice is to determine the Constitutionality of things, this seems like a pretty bizarre argument, but democrats aren’t known for being rational. Speaking of which, California democrat Kamala Harris says she won’t be voting to confirm Gorsuch because he bases his decisions on the law instead of feelings. Harris tweeted out this stunning statement today: Judge Gorsuch has consistently valued legalisms over real lives. I won't support his...

Vice President Pence sought Saturday to pressure Sen. Joe Manchin to support President Trump's Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, singling out the Democratic senator during a speech in his home state of West Virginia. "Let me say this to you West Virginia, if we can get the help of Sen. Joe Manchin, and with the help of Sen. Shelley Moore Capito [R], Judge Neil Gorsuch will soon become Justice Neil Gorsuch," Pence said during his speech at a construction supply depot.

A no vote on RYANcare/GOPcare is a vote FOR constitutional government. Obamacare, RYANcare, RINOcare, GOPcare, Hillarycare, Trumpcare or ANY form of federal government mandated health care package is UNCONSTITUTIONAL! The constitution clearly reserves health care and health care insurance to the states and the PEOPLE! The founders did not establish the federal government to be a charity or to "care for" the personal needs of the citizens. The founders never intended to create a welfare state! The constitution was intended to severely RESTRICT the powers of the federal government and to leave most governing powers to the states and the...

Why can’t United States senators, law-school deans, and journalists bother to understand or fairly characterize the legal doctrines they so vigorously oppose? This morning, Senator Dianne Feinstein — fresh from lecturing Neil Gorsuch on the novel constitutional concept of “super precedent” — purported to attack Judge Gorsuch’s legal philosophy by reading a question from a law-school dean: You are a self-professed originalist in your approach to constitutional interpretation. For example, you wrote, and I quote, “Judges should instead strive, if humanly and so imperfectly to imply the law as it is, focusing backward, not forward, and looking to text,...

On Friday, March 17, 2017, Governor Dennis Daugaard of South Dakota vetoed HB 1072, known as the Constitutional Carry bill, and HB 1156, which would have allowed a small number of South Dakota holders of Enhanced Concealed Carry permits to carry inside of the state Capitol. His veto letters reproduced below, sans headers and signature block. From sd.gov: I herewith return to you House Bill 1072 with my VETO.  House Bill 1072 is an Act to repeal and revise certain provisions relating to permits to carry a concealed pistol. The proponents of House Bill 1072 did not testify about...

There is a new argument that progressives are cooking up, consider this a warning. Be prepared. In Original Intent and the Framers' Constitution, the following is written: (page 268) Oddly enough, those who advocate a constitutional "jurisprudence of original intention" and assert that the Constitution "said what it meant and meant what it said," are the ones who most vigorously deny content to the Ninth Amendment and to the concept of a "living Constitution." Presumably, they would not swear fealty to a dead Constitution, not even to a static one of the sort endorsed by Chief Justice Roger Taney in...

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad Anything is up for discussion, including a new constitution for Syria, President Bashar al-Assad said in an interview with Russian journalists on Monday.“We are ready to discuss anything including the constitution, but we need to see who’s going to be in Geneva, are they going to discuss the same paper or not?” the president said. “But for us, as a government, our position is very clear: that we are ready to discuss it in details, but we support the headline, of course.”Both Syria and the opposition groups had previously rejected a Russian proposal for a new...

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham on Tuesday questioned Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch about what it would take to impeach President Trump. The Republican senator used a portion of his time for questions at the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing to probe Gorsuch about the impeachment process.

Representative Elise M. Stefanik is a young, freshman republican congresswoman from the Albany New York area. And using a probative questioning timeline, she single-handily pulled the mask from FBI Director James Comey, yet no-one seemed to notice. Obviously Ms. Stefanik has not been in the swamp long enough to lose her common sense.

U.S. District Court Judge Walter H. Rice In a recent article in Military.com, senior federal judge Walter H. Rice was quoted. The judge has been with the District Court since 1980.  His opinion about federal jurisdiction over legal carry on federal facilities is correct as to the state of current law, as far as I have determined. At the moment, federal officials can bar the carry of private arms at their facilities with proper signage. But it was the statement of the judge's personal opinion about the Second Amendment that was interesting. Judge Price said he supported the Second...

Where there is government there is corruption. Corruption is a broad term. Perhaps in its simplest meaning it is just a departure from an original design. Various federal statutes set forth punishment for felony corruption in government, such as embezzlement or trading influence for money. Another category of corruption are high crimes. High crimes assault our governing form, our Constitution. While high crimes are not defined in the Constitution, we know the punishment for them is limited to removal from office. In well-ordered government, institutions are strong enough to deter most, and punish nearly all who steal money, trade official...

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." I don't see power over health care or insurance or anything like that being delegated to the federal government anywhere in the constitution, so it is reserved to the states and the people per the tenth amendment. The federal government cannot dictate who or what must be covered or at what price or any other terms or requirements for private health care insurance or coverage. And, Robert's ruling notwithstanding, it is not...

A must listen for anyone who hasn't heard it. This is yet another example of what we are up against.Here's an attorney that's involved with the recent Hawaii case that put a halt to President Trump's recent travel ban. She argues that our Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights applies to ALL people of the world...including foreigners living in foreign countries. Beyond stunning.Tucker Carlson - Judicial Overreach Based On 1st Amendment - Travel Ban (begin around 1:45)

The fake news media is reporting that General Michael Flynn was working for Russian firms, giving speeches while making thousands of dollars from foreign governments. The truth is the General Flynn was contracted out by a firm to speak about cyber security as a private citizen. Interestingly, all roads lead to Hillary Clinton having violated the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.

The White House issued a directive to all VA facilities, instructing them to hang a portrait of President Trump, Ed Henry reported this morning. "Fox & Friends" has reported on this all week after Republican congressman and Army veteran Brian Mast hung a portrait of President Trump and Secretary of Veterans Affairs David Shulkin at the West Palm Beach VA Medical Center. The pictures were then taken down by staffers, with one reportedly declaring that President Trump was not his president. Mast and local veterans spoke out against the move, though the management argued there was a protocol for hanging...

In earlier posts we learned the legal and political sovereign over colonial America was the King-in-Parliament. After independence, both sovereignties relocated to the new state legislatures. From Part IV, the Constitution put the Declaration’s recognition of legal sovereignty in the people into practice. Peaceful Revolution. Man is incapable of creating a perfect institution, suitable for all times. Through Article V, the decay and eventual death that typifies republics was no longer inevitable. The Constitution never pretended to perfection or to the exclusion of future improvements. On the contrary, the healing principle in Article V enables the legal sovereign to return...

A federal District Court judge in Maryland is considering whether he should order President Donald Trump to double the annual inflow of refugees up to 100,000 per year.

California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye on Thursday told federal immigration officials to stop “stalking undocumented immigrants” at California courthouses. Cantil-Sakauye said she was “deeply concerned” that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are apparently seeking out undocumented immigrants for deportation at courthouses and courtrooms from San Francisco to Los Angeles.

In the 18th Century, Mrs. Powel took to heart Dr. Franklin’s instruction to keep the U.S. republic. Today’s political environment, however, makes clear that she alone was not enough to keep our republic. She’s gone now and here we are, left to deal with a so-called “democratic” republic on an apparent crash course with anarchy. In 21st Century America, then, how do we maintain our republic? Before we can maintain this structure, we need to understand it. The original U.S. mixed republic was designed to be balanced on a scale between tyranny and chaos – a place of peace between...

Serious query here. I am upset with the judges who have said Trump cannot enforce his EOs. But I just had a "flashback" that seems to raise a question. Maybe it has been expressed but I don't recall seeing it in this manner. Here it is: Executive Orders are directions by the Chief Executive to employees and deputies of the executive BRANCH. That is, the chief executive CANNOT make rules for those working directly for the other two branches. Question: Are these judges unconstitutionally (if my understanding of EOs is accurate) meddling in another branch of gov't?